Right, ok, anyone who thinks that there is any human being that can make any car go faster than it is possible to is a moron.

However, I don't believe that is what most are suggesting when referring to a driver's outperforming of a car. Quite often we'll hear respected pundits use the "outperforming" phrase, often coupled with something like "he was putting that car in places it doesn't belong". Brundle often speaks this way.

Far from suggesting that the laws of physics were being defied, I think this is simply suggesting that whoever is being referred to is driving that car faster or better than the vast majority of other drivers are able to.

everybody knows its a colloquialism, fastidious pedants at work.

Brundle used that phrase practically every race in relation to Alonso last year. Damon Hill also uses it.

Don't suggest "Vettel is on fire" the literal police will jump on you.

Its a stupid phrase, and an even worse concept. There really is no such thing as "where it doesn't belong". If its happening, then it was possible, and that is within the available performance of the car. What they really mean is they are surprised to see that the car has more available performance than they thought. That doesn't sound snazzy on tv though, and its not easily understood by the viewers, especially when they want to hear about drivers instead of cars. What they should really do is question why the driver wasn't able to tap into that performance sooner.

Its a stupid phrase, and an even worse concept. There really is no such thing as "where it doesn't belong". If its happening, then it was possible, and that is within the available performance of the car. What they really mean is they are surprised to see that the car has more available performance than they thought. That doesn't sound snazzy on tv though, and its not easily understood by the viewers, especially when they want to hear about drivers instead of cars. What they should really do is question why the driver wasn't able to tap into that performance sooner.

Michael finished some races in places where it defied all logic and common sense. I know you have a background in mechanical side of things, but most of us romanticise this notion of heroes, ones who are superlative in every which manner. I found that it bloody moved me, when i saw Michael finish first after 4 pitstops to Alonso's 3(mind you, Renault was faster that day), and to this day I think it was the men (Brawn and Michael) who made it so. While it is true that the car could do close to 30 odd qualifying laps, but it possibly wouldn't have had with others. I also would like to point a race win while serving penalty in the box.Sometimes willpower is of greater importance than horsepower and then you have a result out of line with performance.

Its a stupid phrase, and an even worse concept. There really is no such thing as "where it doesn't belong". If its happening, then it was possible, and that is within the available performance of the car. What they really mean is they are surprised to see that the car has more available performance than they thought. That doesn't sound snazzy on tv though, and its not easily understood by the viewers, especially when they want to hear about drivers instead of cars. What they should really do is question why the driver wasn't able to tap into that performance sooner.

If you had a car that was the 5th quickest you could still fight for podiums however, which is more than just outperforming your team mate Maybe not outperforming the car but putting it where it shouldn't be in relation to its competitors. As were talking about Hamilton Bahrain 09 instantly springs to mind. Or Schumacher throughout the 1997 season.

As well as Vettel's 2008 season. Toro Rosso shouldn't have scored consistently and no other driver since then has strung a series of points finishes in TR since Vettel left. Take away the Monza win still an impressive feat.

If you had a car that was the 5th quickest you could still fight for podiums however, which is more than just outperforming your team mate Maybe not outperforming the car but putting it where it shouldn't be in relation to its competitors. As were talking about Hamilton Bahrain 09 instantly springs to mind. Or Schumacher throughout the 1997 season.

As well as Vettel's 2008 season. Toro Rosso shouldn't have scored consistently and no other driver since then has strung a series of points finishes in TR since Vettel left. Take away the Monza win still an impressive feat.

The STR3 was a very fast car. It was the exact same chassis that Red Bull were using and was rumoured to be half a second faster around any given track because of the Ferrari engine that it carried compared to the underpowered Renault engine that the sister team had. Vettel drove very well in 2008, but the car was obviously a very competitive machine and should have delivered those results (Perhaps Monza excluded).

Brundle used that phrase practically every race in relation to Alonso last year. Damon Hill also uses it.

Don't suggest "Vettel is on fire" the literal police will jump on you.

I would say it was a colloquialism, however I have noticed a number of times on PF1 the term being used as a fact as if some drivers can actually defy the laws of physics.

Some posters tend to look at the weaker team mate and say that's were the car belongs and then look at the stronger one and say he out performed it. They use a the term more as fact than merely a saying. It's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff in this manner.

The putting the car were it doesn't deserve I have heard many times in rallying but due to the regs there it makes sense. If someone is mixing it overall with guys a class or two above them then the car then truly the car is where it doesn't belong. Obviously they shouldn't in theory be competing against faster cars, so when a guy in a 2wd 1600 is putting up times amongst the WRCs obviously it's where it doesn't belong. F1 is a different beast, they are all the same class built to the same regs. They all have similar horsepower so there is no mixing it with the higher classes. They are where they are.

Lately they seem to praise one another a lot. They seem to have put the past behind them (well, for a while now). Maybe the forum should too.

As for Alonso's motives, I think it is a win-win-win situation. He obviously trully believes this, as many people do, as I regard Hammy highly too. He also makes it easier on himself praising the rookie who beat him. It may also serve as mind games for Vetter. In the end of the day, he was asked and he answered. Simple as that

This,i don't get why it seems to bother people alot that Alonso has this opinion...maybe he really does feel that Hamilton is his strongest rival,who exactly is anyone to tell him otherwise lol

Maybe it's not that he has an opinion, but the fact that lately it seems to be happening all too often. I mean I remember so many articles praising each other the last few months.

If seen Alonso ripped to shreds on this forum for some things he's said with some claiming he knows nothing, now he says tht LH is the strongest driver and some of those same people are happy to take this as fact lol

Lately they seem to praise one another a lot. They seem to have put the past behind them (well, for a while now). Maybe the forum should too.

As for Alonso's motives, I think it is a win-win-win situation. He obviously trully believes this, as many people do, as I regard Hammy highly too. He also makes it easier on himself praising the rookie who beat him. It may also serve as mind games for Vetter. In the end of the day, he was asked and he answered. Simple as that

it's Alonsos opinion, like some say Senna was the best & others say Prost was the bestIn the end ist subjective

It does make you larf ! How he get asked a question answers it and some people think he is playing mind games. They need to get a grip.

I think you should read my answer a bit better A2jdl. I've said that it may as well serve as mind games. It's common tactic in sports/politics/debates etc. afterall. F1 is a cruel place and you get whatever advantage you can get. Nothing wrong with that, it's not illegal!!!

Lately they seem to praise one another a lot. They seem to have put the past behind them (well, for a while now). Maybe the forum should too.

As for Alonso's motives, I think it is a win-win-win situation. He obviously trully believes this, as many people do, as I regard Hammy highly too. He also makes it easier on himself praising the rookie who beat him. It may also serve as mind games for Vetter. In the end of the day, he was asked and he answered. Simple as that

it's Alonsos opinion, like some say Senna was the best & others say Prost was the bestIn the end ist subjective

It does make you larf ! How he get asked a question answers it and some people think he is playing mind games. They need to get a grip.

I think you should read my answer a bit better A2jdl. I've said that it may as well serve as mind games. It's common tactic in sports/politics/debates etc. afterall. F1 is a cruel place and you get whatever advantage you can get. Nothing wrong with that, it's not illegal!!!

If seen Alonso ripped to shreds on this forum for some things he's said with some claiming he knows nothing, now he says tht LH is the strongest driver and some of those same people are happy to take this as fact lol

Also weird that the strongest driver is the only top driver Alonso has beaten for three years running.

If seen Alonso ripped to shreds on this forum for some things he's said with some claiming he knows nothing, now he says tht LH is the strongest driver and some of those same people are happy to take this as fact lol

Also weird that the strongest driver is the only top driver Alonso has beaten for three years running.

You may read the whole interview, where Alonso explains what it needs to be WDC or in the position therefore

I think it's important for the sanity levels to remain at satisfactory levels in this thread to remember that Alonso did not say that Hamilton is the best driver on the grid.

Alonso, as I'm sure is the case with any top level competitive sportsperson, thinks that he himself is the best... obviously. What he said, and he was not even specifically referring to this season, is that Lewis is generally his strongest opponent:

Fred wrote:

I do not know who will be my main opponent for this season, he who has the best team, with the best year in terms of preparation, luck, testing, all of these factors [...] but as for strongest opponent, who is strongest driver? My answer is Hamilton.

I can't believe he thinks that Hamilton was the best driver last year (2011). He had his worst year in terms of performance, equalled his worst WDC position and got beaten by his team mate. And he still considers him better than Vettel.

He even touts him to be the strongest next year, in a new team with a car that is consistently more than a second off the leaders.

Don't you think it could be at least a very subtle dig on Vettel?

And the whole "I am not saying he is not the strongest driver." regarding Vettel smells a lot like "I'm not calling you fat, but you're blocking the sun" type of comment.

Again, this doesn't mean that he doesn't rate Vettel or Hamilton that way

I can't believe he thinks that Hamilton was the best driver last year (2011). He had his worst year in terms of performance, equalled his worst WDC position and got beaten by his team mate. And he still considers him better than Vettel.

He even touts him to be the strongest next year, in a new team with a car that is consistently more than a second off the leaders.

Don't you think it could be at least a very subtle dig on Vettel?

And the whole "I am not saying he is not the strongest driver." regarding Vettel smells a lot like "I'm not calling you fat, but you're blocking the sun" type of comment.

Again, this doesn't mean that he doesn't rate Vettel or Hamilton that way

Last year was 2012. We have 2013 now.2012 Hamilton could be argued as the stongest driverOnly driver who made it to q3 every racemade the least mistakesbeat his WDC team mate despite 6 non fault DNFs etc8 poles4 wins ( could have been 7)

When Alonso speaks about strongest driver, he speaks about thr driver performance, not the car & not the team.Hamilton can easily the best driver this year, but not have the best car

If seen Alonso ripped to shreds on this forum for some things he's said with some claiming he knows nothing, now he says tht LH is the strongest driver and some of those same people are happy to take this as fact lol

Also weird that the strongest driver is the only top driver Alonso has beaten for three years running.

You may read the whole interview, where Alonso explains what it needs to be WDC or in the position therefore

And that changes the fact that he thinks the strongest driver is the ONLY top driver he has beaten for 3 years running?

I can't believe he thinks that Hamilton was the best driver last year (2011). He had his worst year in terms of performance, equalled his worst WDC position and got beaten by his team mate. And he still considers him better than Vettel.

He even touts him to be the strongest next year, in a new team with a car that is consistently more than a second off the leaders.

Don't you think it could be at least a very subtle dig on Vettel?

And the whole "I am not saying he is not the strongest driver." regarding Vettel smells a lot like "I'm not calling you fat, but you're blocking the sun" type of comment.

Again, this doesn't mean that he doesn't rate Vettel or Hamilton that way

Last year was 2012. We have 2013 now.2012 Hamilton could be argued as the stongest driverOnly driver who made it to q3 every racemade the least mistakesbeat his WDC team mate despite 6 non fault DNFs etc8 poles4 wins ( could have been 7)

When Alonso speaks about strongest driver, he speaks about thr driver performance, not the car & not the team.Hamilton can easily the best driver this year, but not have the best car

And that changes the fact that he thinks the strongest driver is the ONLY top driver he has beaten for 3 years running?

In a round about way he's blowing smoke up his own pickle.

2007 he matched the guy he considers the strongest driver.

'10 '11 '12 when Alonso was arguably in an inferior car he beat him.

If you change every time you've used the word "driver" to the word "opponent" (as was used and implied in the interview) then I think it makes a bit more sense.

Whilst I think there is some ambiguity to what Alonso has said, he does specify that his main opponent for this season will be the person for whom the package of car, team, preparation, luck, testing and ability is best. In terms of his strongest opponent as a driver it's Lewis.

If that fact is considered everything you've said makes a lot more sense in my opinion.

Alonso and Hamilton's love-in of late has been great, its like two jilted lovers who just want to go back to 'the way we was'

A lot of it has got to mind-games, they both must feel sick to their stomachs of four championship dry years. Especially when they have been fighting an uphill battle in two of them (10,12) and been totally out of contention in the other two (09,11).

But saying that I still regard them as the best on the grid, followed by Jense, Seb and Kimi in no particular order.

If seen Alonso ripped to shreds on this forum for some things he's said with some claiming he knows nothing, now he says tht LH is the strongest driver and some of those same people are happy to take this as fact lol

Also weird that the strongest driver is the only top driver Alonso has beaten for three years running.

You may read the whole interview, where Alonso explains what it needs to be WDC or in the position therefore

And that changes the fact that he thinks the strongest driver is the ONLY top driver he has beaten for 3 years running?

In a round about way he's blowing smoke up his own pickle.

2007 he matched the guy he considers the strongest driver.

'10 '11 '12 when Alonso was arguably in an inferior car he beat him.

2010 the Ferrari was not inferior2012 had nothing to do with Hamiltons driving, Alonso finished higher in the WDC, it was McLarens mistakes, anyone recognised wich cost Hamilton a better standing & probably the WDC.

Look at the times when both had wheel to wheel battels in almost equal cars NÜrburgring 2011 e.g.

IMO Alonso is very well in the postion to recognise how much is down to the driver, the car & the team, when you look at the final standings

If seen Alonso ripped to shreds on this forum for some things he's said with some claiming he knows nothing, now he says tht LH is the strongest driver and some of those same people are happy to take this as fact lol

Also weird that the strongest driver is the only top driver Alonso has beaten for three years running.

You may read the whole interview, where Alonso explains what it needs to be WDC or in the position therefore

And that changes the fact that he thinks the strongest driver is the ONLY top driver he has beaten for 3 years running?

In a round about way he's blowing smoke up his own pickle.

2007 he matched the guy he considers the strongest driver.

'10 '11 '12 when Alonso was arguably in an inferior car he beat him.

2010 the Ferrari was not inferior2012 had nothing to do with Hamiltons driving, Alonso finished higher in the WDC, it was McLarens mistakes, anyone recognised wich cost Hamilton a better standing & probably the WDC.

Look at the times when both had wheel to wheel battels in almost equal cars NÜrburgring 2011 e.g.

IMO Alonso is very well in the postion to recognise how much is down to the driver, the car & the team, when you look at the final standings

2010 I said arguably inferior and yes it was. Many said the Ferrari was third best car. It certainly wasn't better in the first half of the year.

in 11 one race does not make a season. Anyone who says the Ferrari was equal to the McLaren in '11 is delusional.

The STR3 was a very fast car. It was the exact same chassis that Red Bull were using and was rumoured to be half a second faster around any given track because of the Ferrari engine that it carried compared to the underpowered Renault engine that the sister team had. Vettel drove very well in 2008, but the car was obviously a very competitive machine and should have delivered those results (Perhaps Monza excluded).

I can't believe how you can turn something around like that. Let's see.- "exact same chassis that RB were using": yeah, so what? Had any look at RB's results that year? That was not a good car. If anything, using that chassis makes Vettels accomplishments in the STR even better- "was rumoured": let's not use that as a fact. The number is bogus anyway (especially used together with "any given track"), because in e.g. Singapore Vettel was a second faster than Webber in qualifying, whereas on other circuits Webber was a lot faster in qualif.- "the car was obviously a very competitive machine": no, sorry, it obviously was not. Overall it was a midpack car.

No, it's realism. It's pretty logical that you're going to name the only driver in recent years to have beaten you in the same machinery as being the best.

It's pretty naive to think otherwise.

That logic certainly does not hold for Lewis after being beaten in points by Jenson in 2011, he stated numerous times in 2012 Alonso was the best driver (although I am not sure if he was including himself in that, the same as Alonso probably is not including himself).

Ofcourse the logic doesn't hold, anyone could see Lewis had an off-season in 2011 and he wouldn't gain anything by denying that. So he can say, like all his fans are doing, 2011 was a one-time miss and get on with it. That way he doesn't have to say Button is better (and I agree with that, to be honest).

The only way these sorts of threads are going to get settled is if we have 3 car teams. Alsonso, Vetel, Hamilton. On the McLaren model, not the Ferrari or RBR way to play the game, with either outright team orders or the Marko approach to things.

All things being absolutely equal I'm not sure who would win it by a whisker, but I know who would get the booby prize. Vettel.

No, it's realism. It's pretty logical that you're going to name the only driver in recent years to have beaten you in the same machinery as being the best.

It's pretty naive to think otherwise.

That logic certainly does not hold for Lewis after being beaten in points by Jenson in 2011, he stated numerous times in 2012 Alonso was the best driver (although I am not sure if he was including himself in that, the same as Alonso probably is not including himself).

Ofcourse the logic doesn't hold, anyone could see Lewis had an off-season in 2011 and he wouldn't gain anything by denying that. So he can say, like all his fans are doing, 2011 was a one-time miss and get on with it. That way he doesn't have to say Button is better (and I agree with that, to be honest).

imo 2012 was proof enough 2011 was an one off, & Button is not better. Many thought after 2011 JB is the team leader favourite for WDC ( including himself) ,for Lewis it 's a make or break sason, and see what happenedHamiltpon came back better than ever "The ultimate meassure for a man is not whee he stands in times of comfort and convenience , but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy "

The only way these sorts of threads are going to get settled is if we have 3 car teams. Alsonso, Vetel, Hamilton. On the McLaren model, not the Ferrari or RBR way to play the game, with either outright team orders or the Marko approach to things.

All things being absolutely equal I'm not sure who would win it by a whisker, but I know who would get the booby prize. Vettel.

And besides that, all three drivers in the team would have to be treated exactly the same way &, let's face it, all three have been treated as special in their different teams at some stage, plus it would also depend on the way the team worked. Let's face it, Alonso is not going to respond the same way in a mainly English team as Hamilton & Vettel will (just look at Alonso's year at McLaren) & Vettel & Hamilton may not respond very well in a mainly Italian/Latino team (this we have no way of judging as of now). So, let's face it, there are many more variables than just the three drivers being in equal cars in the same team, at least in my humble opinion

The only way these sorts of threads are going to get settled is if we have 3 car teams. Alsonso, Vetel, Hamilton. On the McLaren model, not the Ferrari or RBR way to play the game, with either outright team orders or the Marko approach to things.

All things being absolutely equal I'm not sure who would win it by a whisker, but I know who would get the booby prize. Vettel.

And besides that, all three drivers in the team would have to be treated exactly the same way &, let's face it, all three have been treated as special in their different teams at some stage, plus it would also depend on the way the team worked. Let's face it, Alonso is not going to respond the same way in a mainly English team as Hamilton & Vettel will (just look at Alonso's year at McLaren) & Vettel & Hamilton may not respond very well in a mainly Italian/Latino team (this we have no way of judging as of now). So, let's face it, there are many more variables than just the three drivers being in equal cars in the same team, at least in my humble opinion

You make a good point about how it's never going to be completely neutral, but Fred did a pretty good job in a British team in 2005/2006.

Sebastian Vettel is a good driver profiting from a brilliant car, rather than a brilliant driver in his own right.When the Red Bull isn't performing great Vettel is just another very good driver and rarely outperforms the car he is in.

This is a bit on the offtopic, but I have to disagree on this. I think what makes Vettel great is his ability to perform when the car is good. Mark Webber is a fast guy on his day, he has a history of amazing qualifying performances from his career in crappy cars like the Jaguar back in the day. When the car isn't that great, Vettel and Webber are pretty evenly matched. How ever, when the car gets better, suddenly it's Vettel who has clearly the upperhand.

Great drivers just fire up when they smell the win, I think all top drivers who have a championship under their belt do that, some more than others. For winning championships, most of the time it's not so important how you perform in a bad car (unless you really suck), but how you perform in a good car, and I think in this Vettel shines. Maybe Hamilton or Alonso get more out of a bad car than Vettel would, but as team mates with equal treatment in the best team of the grid, I think Vettel would come out as the best.

As for Alonso's comment, it does make sense in political way, but I also think it's his honest opinion. Besides, Hamilton is the only top driver he has driven with in a same team, so he knows how good he is. Also i think drivers judging drivers in other cars, it makes psychologically sense to them to think it's the car that's great, thinking it like that helps them keep a high self confidence, "knowing" that you would beat that guy if you were driving the same car. Everyone on the grid, at least the top drivers must think they're ultimately the best.

>>Great drivers just fire up when they smell the win, I think all top drivers who have a championship under their belt do that, some more than others. For winning championships, most of the time it's not so important how you perform in a bad car (unless you really suck), but how you perform in a good car, and I think in this Vettel shines. Maybe Hamilton or Alonso get more out of a bad car than Vettel would, but as team mates with equal treatment in the best team of the grid, I think Vettel would come out as the best.<<

I personally don't think MW has had equal treatment in respect of being SV's team mate but what is interesting is that SV usually outperforms MW and that means, generally, that SV must be better (which of course, most folk would agree) and that has tended to get him the first 'call' so to speak. So, if we accept SV is better than MW - and that Webbo cannot 'use' one of the best cars on the grid to full potential, AND that SV has had the 'first call' - I still wonder what would happen if Vettel was up against a 'true' driver equal in equal machinery. We know he doesn't mind pressure, but I do recall he doesn't like following his teammate either! I think that Vettel would crack under proper sustained peer pressure from an equal (or better) driver in the same machinery (such as with Hamilton/Alonso). Just my view....and I like Vettel - but I don't see him really being a team player, and could imagine him hiding access to his data, etc..

Sebastian Vettel is a good driver profiting from a brilliant car, rather than a brilliant driver in his own right.When the Red Bull isn't performing great Vettel is just another very good driver and rarely outperforms the car he is in

Alonso and Hamilton's love-in of late has been great, its like two jilted lovers who just want to go back to 'the way we was'

A lot of it has got to mind-games, they both must feel sick to their stomachs of four championship dry years. Especially when they have been fighting an uphill battle in two of them (10,12) and been totally out of contention in the other two (09,11).

But saying that I still regard them as the best on the grid, followed by Jense, Seb and Kimi in no particular order.

"Sick to their stomach" I don't know, but I'm pretty sure at least Alonso feels pretty bad about having lost 3 WDC's by a few points.Hamilton, not too sure. He should remain in F1 for a long time, so he has enough time to accomplish more. And I also think that 2012 eased his mind tremendously. He didn't come close to winning the WDC, but he should have been right up there since his driving was superb. Knowing this, and knowing the whole world knows it, is reassuring I guess.

Brundle used that phrase practically every race in relation to Alonso last year. Damon Hill also uses it.

Don't suggest "Vettel is on fire" the literal police will jump on you.

I would say it was a colloquialism, however I have noticed a number of times on PF1 the term being used as a fact as if some drivers can actually defy the laws of physics.

Some posters tend to look at the weaker team mate and say that's were the car belongs and then look at the stronger one and say he out performed it. They use a the term more as fact than merely a saying. It's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff in this manner.

The putting the car were it doesn't deserve I have heard many times in rallying but due to the regs there it makes sense. If someone is mixing it overall with guys a class or two above them then the car then truly the car is where it doesn't belong. Obviously they shouldn't in theory be competing against faster cars, so when a guy in a 2wd 1600 is putting up times amongst the WRCs obviously it's where it doesn't belong. F1 is a different beast, they are all the same class built to the same regs. They all have similar horsepower so there is no mixing it with the higher classes. They are where they are.

But then surely its just as easy to say that the drivers in the faster class rallycars are merely underperforming their cars?

Brundle used that phrase practically every race in relation to Alonso last year. Damon Hill also uses it.

Don't suggest "Vettel is on fire" the literal police will jump on you.

I would say it was a colloquialism, however I have noticed a number of times on PF1 the term being used as a fact as if some drivers can actually defy the laws of physics.

Some posters tend to look at the weaker team mate and say that's were the car belongs and then look at the stronger one and say he out performed it. They use a the term more as fact than merely a saying. It's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff in this manner.

The putting the car were it doesn't deserve I have heard many times in rallying but due to the regs there it makes sense. If someone is mixing it overall with guys a class or two above them then the car then truly the car is where it doesn't belong. Obviously they shouldn't in theory be competing against faster cars, so when a guy in a 2wd 1600 is putting up times amongst the WRCs obviously it's where it doesn't belong. F1 is a different beast, they are all the same class built to the same regs. They all have similar horsepower so there is no mixing it with the higher classes. They are where they are.

But then surely its just as easy to say that the drivers in the faster class rallycars are merely underperforming their cars?

So every entrant in a higher class just happened to under perform

So when Phillipe Bugalski in the Citreon Xsara Kit car won the Tour De Corse and Catalunya against all the WRC cars the full field of WRC guys under performed that weekend

McRae Sainz Makkinen Panizzi Burns Auriol all Just happened to have two off weekends.